Reply With Quote
No. How is having all of your starting pieces and no lingering commitments trouble? Come on, man. It's like saying you're lost on the way to the store when you're still in the house putting on your shoes.
They will trade up into the top 10
They will trade down
They will stand pat with the 11th pick
They will trade the pick for player(s)
the plan is Flopovich looking forward to team dinners
No. How is having all of your starting pieces and no lingering commitments trouble? Come on, man. It's like saying you're lost on the way to the store when you're still in the house putting on your shoes.
I'm impressed with all the typing he's done tonight tbh; dude's prolly written a book's worth. I generally agree with what he says but I just can't see the logic behind defending the direction the organization has gone post-Nephew.
Again what does it say about the Spurs plan and performance that we know they tried to trade but built a team so poorly that they can’t find + value?
the thing why we want trades is if a star becomes available you most likely have to package picks. like this happens every year now in the NBA. Besides that this team wouldn't be worse without one of Aldridge/DeRozan. You give that playing time and the shots to the young guys and there's no doubt in my mind the team will be as good if not better. Third thing is the dead weight of Gay and Mills has to get moved. After this draft especially Mills since we have too many guards.
And last but not least: I can't wait to have a new head coach
It’s like putting on sandals to walk through the snow to get to a grocery store that’s actually a sewage treatment plant
I gave you my definition of trouble. You may not like it but that’s how I frame it in my mind.
Wait, why does the way the team was built have anything to do with the value of DMDR and the other vets?
What? Part of “how the team was built” was trading for Derozan, signing Mills and Gay etc..
I'm pretty sure I started this whole thing off by saying they suck. So it's not like I've been hiding criticism of them this whole discussion. I think people are attacking the wrong things, not that wrong things haven't been occurring.
You started in 2016, which ignores how they lined up contracts in 2015 and signed Aldridge. in 2016 they signed Gasol (whose contract would've been perfect had the Spurs just let him opt in). 2017 was not an alignment year, which is why they had to try to trade LMA and Green to sign Paul. 2018 wasn't a plan with contracts. They just tried to make a trade.
You make it sound like a conspiracy. Like I'm saying they have this super-secret list of huge moves they're going to pull off. It's not that at all. It's that they aligned all of their vets to expire at the same time so they can make a clear break or get them to reorganize their salaries if they were able to bring a guy in. People are surprised that they Spurs signed up for two years of vets and are going into the second year with those vets still on the team.
Missing the playoffs wasn't their goal, and making the playoffs wasn't the alternative. They did not tear it down because they have to care more about their revenue. They full wanted to make the playoffs, which they did the first year and likely intend to do this year. Selling off LMA and the others would've made it way more likely that they'd be horrible, not just on the wrong side of mediocre.There's no way they get more money missing the playoffs. No way. The money argument is simply ridiculous to justify this.
I would tend to agree the product would be worse, but we're not singing praises here either. This isn't a fanbase that hasn't seen what a contending team looks like and what a scrub team looks like, so you're not fooling anybody here.
This team has been junk for a while, and one would even argue that after the 16-17 run, if Kawhi stuck around, he needed help, and LMA was a prime candidate to move to do that. So this isn't a new complain either.
But you're saying that those guys don't have value because they're on the team? Like you think those guys were mistakes. That's fine. But it's weird to argue they have no trade value because they're all together.
At the end of the day I’ve said as well (in “agreement” with you) that SA: drafts well, has decent youth, won’t be harmed by keeping DDR + LMA one more season and then letting them walk etc.
All of that in a bubble is true. I think my definitions of “trouble” or “incompetent” or my level of frustration is what throw you off.
Again: trouble in the context of where they’ve allowed themselves to settle in the scope of their Division and the West. Both from a future asset perspective and win now perspective.
I’ve said they obviously aren’t in trouble as in no path out. My frustration lies in the constant lack of direction, poor asset management compared to the best front offices and their unwillingness to stand up to Pop both on the coaching front and GM front.
The incompetence is taking on Derozan because it was obvious to anyone with a brain that he would hamstring SA with regards to not only winning but asset ac ulation in the future if (when) it was evident it didn’t work.
Now? fa approaches and let’s see if they can clean up the roster here.
I don’t see any argument on how basically running it back is justified. I’m not saying be stupid but at a minimum their needs to be trades to open up time and hopefully take a little shot at improving too since that’s obviously their goal.
Yeah. Sorry. I didn’t mean because they were together. I meant Sa chose to build around players that have no value to other teams
Do they really have no value to other teams or are we just not willing to trade them?
Both. It feels like Sa has no plan and if someone blew their socks off they would trade. But short of that? Even if a trade helped build their future a little they aren’t willing to harm their “chance” at making playoffs at all. While at the same time not doing anything to actually help their chance.
It is the latter. The spurs going into the trade talks with one hand tied behind their back. They aren’t actually trying to get a good trade. They just want to say they tried so they can say they tried. Nothing more.
We can debate all we want, at the end of the day Danny Green will get his threepeat with the Sixers, tbh.
And I get that. I've never said you don't have a right to be frustrated or have a strong idea about what you want the team to do. I definitely didn't want them to sit on their hands. As you said, I think they needed to clean up their roster quite a bit. The only saving grace is that if they do pull off a trade, you can argue that future picks had more value than ones from this past draft. I also think the Spurs need to close the deal on some of these trades. It's crazy that the Sixers were willing to do Richardson straight-up for Mills and SA couldn't make it work. I don't necessarily want the Spurs to take on a Wiggins level of salary. But turning Gay or Mills at least into a future asset might be a good balance between not tearing it down but still not wasting the value that four big playable expiring contracts should have.
Philly is my own stomping ground, so I look after the Sixers every once in a while. Definitely rooting for them this year, especially if they beat LAC in the Finals.
Because going back to the Tim/Manu/Kawhi years is simply not the point, since we were contending (largely thanks to them). And there was space for Aldrige because the vets back then went ahead and took paycuts to make it happen. So the PATFO master plan had a lot of help from selfless vets, which you know you're not getting from LMA or DDR.
When the bottom fell off and Kawhi left, there were decisions to make. I get your point that perhaps at that time they thought they could rebuild. Two years laters and results at hand, it's simply the wrong choice, IMO.
Now, you could argue that you can't go back and change that and that's fair, but there's no reason not to change it now.
We're splitting hairs here, if you ask me. We would be running kids on low contracts (not a terrible thing) and being horrible (which is pretty much how I feel every time Bryn touches a basketball, tbh).
This team will only make the playoffs this year if it gets out-tanked by other teams. And for what? First round fodder? How long can you keep that gig up?
I think hardcore fans will still watch no matter what product you put in there, and I doubt casuals really care about 35-year old LMA.
They have a better shot to make the Finals than the Clippers, IMO.
And that’s one of my biggest beefs. It’s alarming how much of a statistical outlier SA is on trades. Trades are hard but there is more than just bad luck here. They are legitimately bad at trading.
They lack any imagination and need to think long and hard about taking some bad deals if it means getting picks. Why? Are free agents really choosing Sa anytime soon? Does having draft capital play to their strengths?
They really have not shown they understand the modern NBA. They used to have legit advantages over other front offices? Now? I honestly believe they are a bottom tier front office at this point. It’s scary.
I am just legit shocked that Sa didn’t move up. I really wonder if Vassell was truly that high on their board or if they just couldn’t close any deals.
I definitely think it was that they couldn't get any deals done. Whether its their own incompetence or other teams refusing to make a trade that didn't make themselves look as complete winners is the question.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
